No ring, no duties Side chicks draw the line

She never wanted to be his wife. Yet she washed his clothes, shared his bed, lived with him and eventually had his child. But when the married man’s expectations began to resemble those of a husband, she drew the line, insisting there was a difference between helping by choice and being treated as though she owed him wife-like duties.

Kim’s* story is one of several shared by women who have spent time in relationships as the “side piece”. Far from plotting to replace wives or secure rings, many said they entered these relationships with no desire for wife status at all. Instead, they described arrangements governed by unwritten rules, mutual understanding, and a firm belief that certain responsibilities belonged to wives, not girlfriends on the side.

“My side piece role is simple,” said Kay*. “Just be there for me when I’m sexually frustrated.”

Rather than seeing the arrangement as emotionally taxing, she described it as uncomplicated and free from the pressures that often accompany committed relationships.

“I would describe the relationship as a fun activity that comes with no complications and mess.”

For her, problems emerge when one person begins wanting more than what was originally agreed upon.

“I do feel like side pieces are demanding more from the other day. Once expectations start growing, it will eventually move from side-piece situationship to a real relationship.”

The arrangement worked because both parties respected the boundaries.

“He didn’t make demands out of his role, ‘cause I was also his side piece, so we had a mutual understanding.”

What she found most frustrating was when casual relationships started drifting toward emotional commitment.

“When they want to have a serious relationship instead of fun. Some, after awhile, want a relationship.”

In her case, Kim said she entered her situation with her eyes wide open. From the beginning, she knew the man was married.

“I was on the low and he was doing everything right and told me from the get-go that him married, so I already made the decision and went along with him,” Kim related.

At the time, his wife lived in St Ann, while he and the side partner were both based in St James, where he was working.

As the relationship progressed and they began sharing a home, she found herself taking on some of the domestic responsibilities of daily life.

“His wife lived St Ann and me and him did live a MoBay, but we had a machine so, I wasn’t washing with my hand.”

Before she moved in, she said, he largely took care of his own laundry.

“Before, him use to carry up him clothes them, but because I was now there with him, him stop.”

Initially, she did not mind helping. But what began as voluntary support soon became a source of tension. She said she became uncomfortable when he started treating those contributions as obligations rather than acts of goodwill. Over time, their shared living arrangements became so intertwined that she felt she occupied a more central role in his day-to-day life than his wife.

“Mi did a wash fi ‘bout two months because mi did excited about it. But when him did start feel like mi obligated to him, mi stop because that a wife duty on side chick salary,” Kim insisted.

Even after moving into her own apartment, she resisted attempts to have her perform certain functions.

“He wanted me to do those things still and I said, ‘Hell no!’ If him didn’t want mi wash, we would still live.”

The experience reinforced her belief in maintaining independence.

“The last thing a man want is an independent side chick, so I become one real quick,” she said.

While Kim believes women can choose to do almost anything for a partner, she insists that those actions should never be treated as requirements.

“I think you can do anything for the man as long as him don’t expect it, because when him feel obligated it’s a hell no.”

Her assessment of the distinction between wives and side pieces is equally candid.

“The only thing that separate a side chick and a wife is a ring, and she has the papers.”